Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
When it comes votes one has to recall that the UK mostly travels by car. Huge numbers of people never travel by train. The further north you go the more it is true.
That is because it is crap and you can hardly get anywhere on the same day. You see what happens when you spend the cash and put in infrasturucture as done in London/south , the trains are packed out.
Let me know when I can change trains at Riccarton Junction or get a train direct direct from Whitrigg to Annan across the Solway Railway Bridge (closed 1920).
One thing about motorway and road spending. Since all cars are going to be electric by 2040 or whatever, I'd argue the previous -ve carbon emissions argument is now out the window for new roads.
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
Is it any wonder we're struggling with infrastructre based on that?
Many other similarly sized, densely populated and rich countries seem to have much less problem with infrastucture than England, such as Belgium the Netherlands and Japan.
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
The High Speed Trains will be on the High Speed Line
The Local/Commuting Trains will be on the current line.
No wonder GERS confuses you.
You really are an arsehole. Did you read Mike's post to which I replied or were you too desperate to get your" I hate Scotland" dig in. Just so you can get a non addled adult to read it to you I repeat it below. Do you see him mention two lines smartarse.
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
Your comment was:
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
Which rather gives the impression that you think local trains will be on the High Speed Line - is that what you think?
And not once did I mention Scotland.
You obviously have still not read the initial post , even though I explained why I said that , you just cannot give it up , your pathetic quip on GERS related to Scotland and your undying hatred towards it and the SNP. Have you nothing better to do in your twilight years other than fester about your emigration.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Buddha?
2.2b Christians, 1.8b Islam, 0.5b Buddhists. More than 1.0b impacted by Marxism (China, Russia ..)
Yes, but. It is not the number but the impact. Every country east of Iran, except Australasia, has, at one time been Buddhist. Often for many Centuries as the State religion. In India, for 1500 years. The entirety of these societies' culture and history are infused with the Buddha's philosophy.
Instead of building a high speed line between Birmingham and Leeds via Toton, I would build a new line connection between the WCML north of Atherstone and the Burton to Leicester line at Moira. That line is no longer used and there isn't all that much traffic between Burton and Derby.
You could then run trains between Derby and Euston making use of the extra capacity on the WCML (once the Manchester bit of HS2 is done). This would give Burton direct trains to London and increase connectivity between stations on the WCML and Derby/Sheffield.
Interesting thought. I've travelled by road several times recently between the North West/ N Wales and Essex and my sat nav has taken me OFF the M6 at Stoke, and along the A50 to the M1. (And vice versa when going N) Quite light traffic in contrast to the log-jam which is the M6 south of Stoke to the M1, even allowing for the M6 Toll.
When it comes votes one has to recall that the UK mostly travels by car. Huge numbers of people never travel by train. The further north you go the more it is true.
That is because it is crap and you can hardly get anywhere on the same day. You see what happens when you spend the cash and put in infrasturucture as done in London/south , the trains are packed out.
Let me know when I can change trains at Riccarton Junction or get a train direct direct from Whitrigg to Annan across the Solway Railway Bridge (closed 1920).
Will not happen before independence for certain , and very lucky it will after but at least a chance then.
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
Oh and I can see why everyone in the south gets the train everywhere when I went to France last year (via the M25). I thought sunday evening would be a quiet time to cart round it. Apparently not !
On Sunday evening half the Londoners and Home County-ers are returning from their weekend away. It is a bad time to be on the M25.
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
It doesn't really matter what it is, it is still an opportunity. If it is a purely accidental departure from the EU line, it doesn't make it any less of one. Personally I don't think Merkel is stupid, and I think she wants a deal. This is a deniable (as you have just demonstrated) way of leaving the door ajar.
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
That was very much my impression, too (FWIW).
The capacity for self delusion amongst our political classes is limitless.
In the very best case scenario, does HS2 offer a return in excess of its cost?
It will be still used in 100 years. Look at the Underground.
So yes.
I know very little about the building of the tube, but I suspect when it was built the returns were more immediately apparent. And that should surely be the case with every project like this.
I suppose as a resident of London and the South East I'm not allowed to mention our huge infrastructure issues such as the absence of transport capacity for the tens of thousands of new flats being constructed, the absence of new river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge and a rail system which struggles with current passenger numbers yet has a whole line from SE London to Waterloo sitting unused along with platforms at Waterloo.
That's before we mention the small matter of Crossrail and the proposed Crossrail 2 !!
David Davis and the TPA came up with suggestions for re-allocating the money from HS2 to lots of smaller schemes (I think there were around 29) spread out across the country. The biggest one was improving rail connections across the north and quite a few other schemes involved re-opening disused railway lines.
I think more people would see a benefit from re-introducing a lost railway service than making an existing one slightly faster.
It's not making a line slightly faster - it's about increasing capacity.
One thing we are really bad at in this country is actually ensuring all the benefits of a scheme are explained - someone takes a single item and runs with it ignoring everything else.
I understand it is also about capacity but is there any evidence that this particular route is most deserving of extra capacity? Bear in mind there are already 2 railway lines between London and Birmingham.
Certainly if you look at overcrowding, some of the most overcrowded services are those from Manchester Airport to Glasgow and Edinburgh
Either build HS2 or don't. @MalcolmG take on "Jobs for the boys" sounds wildly accurate. £7Bn spent already ? Who has this 7£Bn - as it is our, (taxpayers) money shouldn't we be able to see a breakdown... and what these companies have actually done for their wonga.
I've become ambivalent about HS2, I don't think the business case is there for it (Unlike LHR3 which needs to go ahead) and would rather the north was connected up with proper train links.
Also I'm not sure who lives in Birmingham with the intention of commuting to London, let alone further north :E !
That is to totally misunderstand the capaciy issues. This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces.
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
The High Speed Trains will be on the High Speed Line
The Local/Commuting Trains will be on the current line.
No wonder GERS confuses you.
You really are an arsehole. Did you read Mike's post to which I replied or were you too desperate to get your" I hate Scotland" dig in. Just so you can get a non addled adult to read it to you I repeat it below. Do you see him mention two lines smartarse.
"This is not just about a fast service but provding the much needed extra capacity on the line for local, stopping and other serivces. "
Your comment was:
That will help make it High speed having lots of slow local trains chugging up and down it. Bit like buying a Ferrari to go shopping at Tesco.
Which rather gives the impression that you think local trains will be on the High Speed Line - is that what you think?
And not once did I mention Scotland.
You obviously have still not read the initial post , even though I explained why I said that , you just cannot give it up , your pathetic quip on GERS related to Scotland and your undying hatred towards it and the SNP. Have you nothing better to do in your twilight years other than fester about your emigration.
Do you think local trains will be running on the high speed line - yes or no?
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
I agree.
"I can take the despair, it's the hope I can't stand ."
In the very best case scenario, does HS2 offer a return in excess of its cost?
It will be still used in 100 years. Look at the Underground.
So yes.
I know very little about the building of the tube, but I suspect when it was built the returns were more immediately apparent. And that should surely be the case with every project like this.
Actually, people lost a lot of money building the underground network. We should be eternally grateful to them.
A question about very low yields on long term government bonds.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
Interesting question but I would say not. The very low yield on government bonds is being driven by demographics (more pensions in payment backed by annuities or bonds), by the overreaction to the GFC shown by the Basel system which forces banks to keep capital in "secure" assets, and by the surplus saving being generated by countries like China with massive trade surpluses to recycle. Of course there is a bit of fear too but a short term recession (which is likely) doesn't tell us a lot about growth and demand over the longer term, at least in my view.
Point of Order, Mr D - China's trade surplus isn't actually that big. I
It has fallen a great deal as they have tried to boost internal demand but they still hold substantial quantities of US bonds, do they not?
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
Well yes. The backstop was there because in 2 years of negotiating no adequate solution was found and there is no great confidence that it will be found in the transition period either. Of course if Boris does come up with a solution the EU can live with the need for a backstop disappears because the problem is solved. If he doesn't we face the same choice as before.
The Brexit Party has a 10 to 15% core vote regardless (5% to 10% even if No Deal) however if Boris got Brexit and the Withdrawal Agreement minus the backstop through the Brexit Party would still be well below the 20 to 25% it was when May extended, mainly to the Tories benefit
Attention would then move to 39 billion pounds and a transition period that Farage will cry sell out so it might not be quite as clear cut as you think. Anyone know how close the U.K. would have to follow EU laws during the transition eg Financial Transparency requirements.
Which is why I said the Brexit Party would still get 10 to 15% even if the Withdrawal Agreement minus backstop was agreed and passed.
However UKIP got 12% in 2015 and the Tories still won a majority with a few working class Labour voters voting UKIP as they will also vote Brexit Party
The Tory 2015 majority came on the back of the LibDem collapse, didn’t it?
In the Southwest yes but LD revival at the expense of Labour as now equally benefits the Tories as the Labour and SDP split helped Thatcher in the 1980s.
For example on the latest Yougov there is a 12.5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives in London (compared to 3.5% nationally) since GE17 and a 12% swing from the Tories to the LDs in London (about the same as the 12.5% swing nationally).
That would see the Tories gain 11 seats from Labour in London but only lose 2 to the LDs in the capital
A question about very low yields on long term government bonds.
Don't they mean that investors are unable to find other things they think will give a better long term yield ?
Which suggests that long term economic growth might not be as high it has been projected to be.
And if future long term growth is lower than it is projected to be doesn't that make it unlikely that future growth in transport requirements will be as high as it has been projected to be ?
Interesting question but I would say not. The very low yield on government bonds is being driven by demographics (more pensions in payment backed by annuities or bonds), by the overreaction to the GFC shown by the Basel system which forces banks to keep capital in "secure" assets, and by the surplus saving being generated by countries like China with massive trade surpluses to recycle. Of course there is a bit of fear too but a short term recession (which is likely) doesn't tell us a lot about growth and demand over the longer term, at least in my view.
Point of Order, Mr D - China's trade surplus isn't actually that big. I
It has fallen a great deal as they have tried to boost internal demand but they still hold substantial quantities of US bonds, do they not?
Owning substantial quantities of US government bonds is not the same as recycling trade surpluses.
The link below shows the US$ value of current accounts (which is as near as we get to trade deficits). China is tenth. (If you did % of GDP, it would be mid-table)
I suppose as a resident of London and the South East I'm not allowed to mention our huge infrastructure issues such as the absence of transport capacity for the tens of thousands of new flats being constructed, the absence of new river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge and a rail system which struggles with current passenger numbers yet has a whole line from SE London to Waterloo sitting unused along with platforms at Waterloo.
That's before we mention the small matter of Crossrail and the proposed Crossrail 2 !!
I am not sure whether the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail or Russia Today most deserve the HYUFD/Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf Prize for the most absurd and biased bum-licking coverage disguised as journalistic endeavour 2019
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
It's been a horrifically wet August which will have reduced demand for a lot of summer related products. But something to keep an eye on. Consumer demand has been remarkably resilient to date.
I realise I'm late to the party, but I have a slightly different take on Angela Merkel's point on the backstop form those that most people seem to have. It seems to me that she was simply applying rigorous German logic to the timetable Boris has set himself. He says we must leave do-or-die on Macron's chosen date of October 31st, and he says he wants a deal. So, working backwards from October 31st, and allowing an absolute minimum time for ratifying any agreement, that means that Boris has a maximum of around 30 days to propose a solution acceptable to the EU. That doesn't sound to me like any kind of concession, just a statement of how the dates work out.
I don't understand the faux optimism either apart from the Johnson acolytes getting overexcited. Merkel's line has been the EU's line throughout. The UK wants to leave therefore the onus is on the UK to come up with credible solutions to the problems and issues disengaging from the EU (and especially the SM) will create. The EU has said that consistently and persistently since March 2017.
The problem has been we have been unable to come up with anything credible and practical. Arguing for a technological solution that might work in a decade is no good for 1/11/19 and the EU rightly points us out. Yes, we can stay in the EU for a decade and then see if the technological solution works but I can't imagine that going down well with the acolytes or with the BP.
Once again, there's no point shouting, stamping our feet and blaming the EU. We chose to leave - it's only right we should come up with ways for making that process work for both sides.
Merkel's statement reminds me a little of the bit in the Syrian civil war where Kerry was put on the spot and asked whether (I am paraphrasing) America would refrain from attacking Syria if Assad gave up all his chemical weapons. Of course America didn't give a crap about chemical weapons, it was pretext du jour for regime change. But Kerry stumbled and said 'yes, but that would never happen'. Quick as a flash, the Russians instigated a massive process to remove Assad's chemical weapons, which he was probably delighted about, as he'd never have got away with using them anyway. The course of the whole conflict was changed.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marxist China is doing quite well in creating wealth and building infrastructure (on topic).
No, capitalist authoritarian China is. Sadly because it has brutally combined the authoritarianism of Marx's descendents with the capitalism of the west.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Marx has been used as an excuse for dictatorship, as has Christ tbf. I suspect neither of them would have condoned that outcome.
Dictatorship was the natural outflow of Marx's work, he wanted violence and force used.
I am not sure whether the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, Daily Mail or Russia Today most deserve the HYUFD/Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf Prize for the most absurd and biased bum-licking coverage disguised as journalistic endeavour 2019
They'd all got a better reputation than the Indy mind
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
"tens of millions dead"? I think that you grossly underestimate his achievements. Dangerous stuff, philosophy.
Point taken. Hundreds of millions dead may be fairer.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
Funny how those who espouse personal & individual responsibility for actions obsessively blame Marx for events long after his death.
When individuals do harm in Marx's name following Marx's philosophy then yes they are responsible, as is Marx indirectly.
We should know enough to condemn Marxism to the dustbin of history and for his name to be treated with contempt not admiration but sadly we still keep having to win this argument despite the evidence being conclusive.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
The other point to note is that, even if the gestation period for unicorns were less than 30 days, coming up with an alternative proposal acceptable to the EU wouldn't mean that they would be willing to change the Withdrawal Agreement. Their position would be 'That's great, your alternative is going to work and therefore the backstop will never be triggered, and we're happy to confirm that in the political declaration or a side letter'. It wouldn't be that the insurance policy (as they see it) of the backstop could be removed.
Merkel's statement reminds me a little of the bit in the Syrian civil war where Kerry was put on the spot and asked whether (I am paraphrasing) America would refrain from attacking Syria if Assad gave up all his chemical weapons. Of course America didn't give a crap about chemical weapons, it was pretext du jour for regime change. But Kerry stumbled and said 'yes, but that would never happen'. Quick as a flash, the Russians instigated a massive process to remove Assad's chemical weapons, which he was probably delighted about, as he'd never have got away with using them anyway. The course of the whole conflict was changed.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
Rewriting history there. Assad repeatedly did use chemical weapons.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU, May is gone. Parliament refused to pass it three times.
May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened. May is gone. Boris was calling explicitly for the WDA to be reopened at the time May made those commitments, Britain has chosen via its own constitutional process to make Boris PM now not May.
The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Parliment demanded a vote over the WA, rather than leaving it to the government. It seems it's parliments fault now for not voting it.
The other point to note is that, even if the gestation period for unicorns were less than 30 days, coming up with an alternative proposal acceptable to the EU wouldn't mean that they would be willing to change the Withdrawal Agreement. Their position would be 'That's great, your alternative is going to work and therefore the backstop will never be triggered, and we're happy to confirm that in the political declaration or a side letter'. It wouldn't be that the insurance policy (as they see it) of the backstop could be removed.
Parliament won't wear that and quite rightly.
When a deal is reached there's no reason the WDA can't either be changed or a legally-binding codicil can't be appended to it to change it. If it isn't legally binding it is pointless.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
You focus all the country's infrastructure spending on one city and count it as national spending but then apportion all the revenue generated as being generated by that city and it looks like that city "pays" for everyone else.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Parliment demanded a vote over the WA, rather than leaving it to the government. It seems it's parliments fault now for not voting it.
Thanks Gina Miller for that one.
Indeed. @AlastairMeeks seems to think for some reason that Boris should be bound to the commitments May made that Parliament rejected rather than the decisions Parliament made or that Boris himself made.
No Parliament can bind its successor, but no PM can bind their successor either, especially when the predecessor PM's decisions were rejected by Parliament at the time.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU, May is gone. Parliament refused to pass it three times.
May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened. May is gone. Boris was calling explicitly for the WDA to be reopened at the time May made those commitments, Britain has chosen via its own constitutional process to make Boris PM now not May.
The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win.
You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. True to your usual habit, almost every assertion of fact that you have just made is untrue. Until you start dealing with facts rather than fantasy, I shall ignore your contributions.
You know much more than me about this. For me, the priority has to be to create new growth and the type of critical mass that allows London to thrive. The money pouring into London in tech (there was an article yesterday saying that the first 7 months of this year exceeded FDI for the whole of last year) goes there because of that critical mass of skills, opportunities, outstanding academic institutions and, of course, transport infrastructure which create opportunities for growth. That's great but we need to try to replicate it elsewhere.
Cambridge always leaned toward science and Oxford toward the arts.
That's interesting, because although as far as I can judge Oxford's science courses are still very good, its humanities and languages courses are now if not mediocre at least underwhelming. Their history degree struggles to match the one on offer at Brookes, for example.
Cambridge, by contrast, is by any measure an outstanding university for History.
Many years ago it was pointed out that most of our professors of philosophy came from Oxford, despite the main advances in the field having been made at Cambridge.
Angels fear to tread here, but I suggest 'advances' in philosophy are pretty rare. I wonder if the last ones were Kant 1781 and Frege 1879. (Neither were at Cambridge!)
I would suggest that Bertram Russel (in showing the flaw in Frege's constuction of number, and as a result advancing the axiomatic definition of set theory, ie why 1+1=2) and Karl Popper (in formulating empirical science in terms of falsification) are good examples of advances in philosophy in the 20th century.
How about Godel who showed that Russell had been wasting his time, and Wittgenstein who in PI showed that all philosophers had been wasting their time.
But most influential of all is Marx (the point is not to explain the world but to change the world). His philosophy has had an impact on hundreds of millions, exceeded in impact only by Jesus Christ and Mohammed.
Indeed. Hundreds of millions impoverished and tens of millions dead because of his philosophy.
"tens of millions dead"? I think that you grossly underestimate his achievements. Dangerous stuff, philosophy.
Point taken. Hundreds of millions dead may be fairer.
Ideas + human nature is highly dangerous mix. Philosophy on its own is as harmful as stamp collecting.
Merkel's statement reminds me a little of the bit in the Syrian civil war where Kerry was put on the spot and asked whether (I am paraphrasing) America would refrain from attacking Syria if Assad gave up all his chemical weapons. Of course America didn't give a crap about chemical weapons, it was pretext du jour for regime change. But Kerry stumbled and said 'yes, but that would never happen'. Quick as a flash, the Russians instigated a massive process to remove Assad's chemical weapons, which he was probably delighted about, as he'd never have got away with using them anyway. The course of the whole conflict was changed.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
Rewriting history there. Assad repeatedly did use chemical weapons.
I'm not going to try and change your opinion on that. Suffice it to say that the process to remove his chemical weapons was done under an internationally recognised organisation, not just the Russkis vouching for him.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Exactly. A new deal could be agreed if Britain’s red lines changed. But they haven’t so the only deal possible is the one Britain has rejected.
The other point to note is that Boris’s envoy to Brussels, David Frost, was asked whether the WA minus backstop would be acceptable to the British government and replied no. So the issue is not just the backstop. Boris is resiling from everything but coming up with nothing in its place.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Merkel's statement reminds me a little of the bit in the Syrian civil war where Kerry was put on the spot and asked whether (I am paraphrasing) America would refrain from attacking Syria if Assad gave up all his chemical weapons. Of course America didn't give a crap about chemical weapons, it was pretext du jour for regime change. But Kerry stumbled and said 'yes, but that would never happen'. Quick as a flash, the Russians instigated a massive process to remove Assad's chemical weapons, which he was probably delighted about, as he'd never have got away with using them anyway. The course of the whole conflict was changed.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
So all Boris needs to do is design something that gives the same level of frictionless trade as a single market and customs union, without the regulatory and tariff alignment, in less than 30 days. Let’s all get behind Boris!
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
Is it any wonder we're struggling with infrastructre based on that?
Many other similarly sized, densely populated and rich countries seem to have much less problem with infrastucture than England, such as Belgium the Netherlands and Japan.
I'm struggling to understand how a higher density of population is supposed to be a detriment to infrastructure spending in general. The costs for a mile of rail track or water line are the same, but you can serve a higher number of customers with it. That should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Merkel's statement reminds me a little of the bit in the Syrian civil war where Kerry was put on the spot and asked whether (I am paraphrasing) America would refrain from attacking Syria if Assad gave up all his chemical weapons. Of course America didn't give a crap about chemical weapons, it was pretext du jour for regime change. But Kerry stumbled and said 'yes, but that would never happen'. Quick as a flash, the Russians instigated a massive process to remove Assad's chemical weapons, which he was probably delighted about, as he'd never have got away with using them anyway. The course of the whole conflict was changed.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
So all Boris needs to do is design something that gives the same level of frictionless trade as a single market and customs union, without the regulatory and tariff alignment, in less than 30 days. Let’s all get behind Boris!
I thought the essential point was the people of the island of Ireland continuing to enjoy living, working, and visiting North and South of the border without the encumbrance of border checks and infrastructure?
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Exactly. A new deal could be agreed if Britain’s red lines changed. But they haven’t so the only deal possible is the one Britain has rejected.
The other point to note is that Boris’s envoy to Brussels, David Frost, was asked whether the WA minus backstop would be acceptable to the British government and replied no. So the issue is not just the backstop. Boris is resiling from everything but coming up with nothing in its place.
Red lines need to move on both sides. It seems there are three desires here, of which any two can only be provided in full:
1. An open Irish border. 2. British sovereingty. 3. Integrity of the single market.
I think everyone agrees the Irish border is paramount so we can take that off the table. Surely the EU can accept that 2 is at least as important as 3 if we want something acceptable to all sides? Is the risk to 3 really bigger than what currently exists on the Romanian-Moldova border? Or the Polish-Ukrainian one?
Is it any wonder we're struggling with infrastructre based on that?
Many other similarly sized, densely populated and rich countries seem to have much less problem with infrastucture than England, such as Belgium the Netherlands and Japan.
I'm struggling to understand how a higher density of population is supposed to be a detriment to infrastructure spending in general. The cost for a mile of rail track or water line are the same, but you can serve a higher number of customers with it. That should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
The cost of the land to put the infrastructure on is much greater. Far more people will be displaced. So the cost of a mile of rail track or water line is not the same.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
Merkel's statement reminds me a little of the bit in the Syrian civil war where Kerry was put on the spot and asked whether (I am paraphrasing) America would refrain from attacking Syria if Assad gave up all his chemical weapons. Of course America didn't give a crap about chemical weapons, it was pretext du jour for regime change. But Kerry stumbled and said 'yes, but that would never happen'. Quick as a flash, the Russians instigated a massive process to remove Assad's chemical weapons, which he was probably delighted about, as he'd never have got away with using them anyway. The course of the whole conflict was changed.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
So all Boris needs to do is design something that gives the same level of frictionless trade as a single market and customs union, without the regulatory and tariff alignment, in less than 30 days. Let’s all get behind Boris!
Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU, May is gone. Parliament refused to pass it three times.
May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened. May is gone. Boris was calling explicitly for the WDA to be reopened at the time May made those commitments, Britain has chosen via its own constitutional process to make Boris PM now not May.
The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win.
You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own facts. True to your usual habit, almost every assertion of fact that you have just made is untrue. Until you start dealing with facts rather than fantasy, I shall ignore your contributions.
Rather than spouting garbage perhaps tell me which fact you dispute. The final paragraph was my opinion but everything said in the two paragraphs preceeding was a simple restatement of fact.
"Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU" - FACT. Under the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the deal would only be reached once it is ratified by Parliament; Parliamentary approval was required by an Act of Parliament as amended by Grieves.
"May is gone." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"Parliament refused to pass it three times." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"May is gone." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"Boris was calling explicitly for the WDA to be reopened at the time May made those commitments" FACT. Do you dispute this?
"Britain has chosen via its own constitutional process to make Boris PM now not May." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
I count 7 statements of fact [though one is dupiclated so 6] that you claim to be untrue fantasy. So which claims do you believe are fantasies of mine? May being gone? Parliament thrice rejecting the deal? Boris claiming the WDA should be renegotiated? All fact.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
That is simply untrue as a matter of law. If it were only the British government rather than the UK state, Britain would already be out of the EU.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
That is simply untrue as a matter of law. If it were only the British government rather than the UK state, Britain would already be out of the EU.
Is it any wonder we're struggling with infrastructre based on that?
Many other similarly sized, densely populated and rich countries seem to have much less problem with infrastucture than England, such as Belgium the Netherlands and Japan.
I'm struggling to understand how a higher density of population is supposed to be a detriment to infrastructure spending in general. The cost for a mile of rail track or water line are the same, but you can serve a higher number of customers with it. That should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
The cost of the land to put the infrastructure on is much greater. Far more people will be displaced. So the cost of a mile of rail track or water line is not the same.
Fair point on roads and rail tracks. On waterlines, gas lines and broadband cable not so much, nobody is displaced in these cases.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
That is simply untrue as a matter of law. If it were only the British government rather than the UK state, Britain would already be out of the EU.
Parliament agreed the extension, it did not ratify the WDA - in fact it rejected it three times.
May's government is gone, all we are left with is the laws and treaties ratified by Parliament. Had Parliament ratified the WDA it would be international law and May might still be PM, it did not.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
If you are going to argue this, then you have to accept that the Parilament which voted for A50 is no longer in existance.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
If you are going to argue this, then you have to accept that the Parilament which voted for A50 is no longer in existance.
Of course I accept that!
That's true, but the Act of Parliament that permited the triggering of A50 is still there and A50 is still legally triggered.
Anything else that happens in the future is for this Parliament now though not that one. And after the next election this Parliament will no longer be relevant except for the laws it has passed. Which may or may not include a WDA.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
If you are going to argue this, then you have to accept that the Parilament which voted for A50 is no longer in existance.
It put it into law however. As of yet, that law has not been removed. If Parliment wished it, then it could make a new law to change it.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
If you are going to argue this, then you have to accept that the Parilament which voted for A50 is no longer in existance.
Not really because once a bill passes parliament and receives royal approval it is now part of UK permanent law.
"Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU" - FACT.
Not fact. Britain negotiated the agreement.
"May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT.
Not fact. Britain did. In return for giving those confirmations, the Article 50 period was extended. There were legal consequences.
"The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
No, simply incorrect. Boris Johnson has said what he doesn't like. He has no suggestions as to how to meet the EU's concerns, despite conceding that these need to be met.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
If Britain wants a different WA it needs (a) to spell out the basis of its negotiating position; and (b) more time in which such a negotiation can take place. It also needs a solution to the Irish question.
It has not done (a) or (c) and has set its face against (b).
The choice to exit without a deal is entirely the British government’s. It is not being pushed into anything.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
If you are going to argue this, then you have to accept that the Parilament which voted for A50 is no longer in existance.
The difference being that the vote for article 50 created a legal position. May agreeing to the WA but failing to get it ratified by Parliament did not.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
Further good news for Boris, after chatting with Macron in the live press conference now the French president says that with goodwill on both sides a Deal can be done in 30 days without changing the core fundamentals of the Withdrawal Agreement
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
It was a stupid position for the EU to ever say it would refuse to reopen the withdrawal agreement. It is clearly not acceptable to British elected representatives, so it went too far in their efforts to squeeze Britain. And now it is not even acceptable to the British government either. They are flogging a dead horse. They need to accept that countries choose different governments and if they want a good relationship with a major European country that provides a major element of the region's intelligence and security apparatus, a degree of compromise is needed.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
Never mind the EU, Britain said that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. Twice.
The British government did. A British government that is no longer in existence. The UK state as a whole did not sign up to that.
That is simply untrue as a matter of law. If it were only the British government rather than the UK state, Britain would already be out of the EU.
Parliament agreed the extension, it did not ratify the WDA - in fact it rejected it three times.
May's government is gone, all we are left with is the laws and treaties ratified by Parliament. Had Parliament ratified the WDA it would be international law and May might still be PM, it did not.
The condition for the extension was that the WA would not be reopened.
The other point to note is that, even if the gestation period for unicorns were less than 30 days, coming up with an alternative proposal acceptable to the EU wouldn't mean that they would be willing to change the Withdrawal Agreement. Their position would be 'That's great, your alternative is going to work and therefore the backstop will never be triggered, and we're happy to confirm that in the political declaration or a side letter'. It wouldn't be that the insurance policy (as they see it) of the backstop could be removed.
Stop being so sensible, of course they will just tear it up given Boris has told them to.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
The "utmost efforts of the UK Government" involved 1) invoking Article 50 before we were ready, 2) realising that we wouldn't be ready in time, 3) asking for a withdrawal agreement when we realised that we wouldn't be ready in time, 4) asking that the backstop being extended to the whole of the UK, 5) calling a general election with an autist PM not capable of adult conversation, 6) staying in Government without being capable of delivering anything, 7) screaming abuse at anybody and everybody like a drunk in a train station.
If that's your definition of "utmost efforts", I would like to see your definition of "total fucking shit-show from beginning to end run by people who couldn't find their arse with both hands and a map".
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
If Britain wants a different WA it needs (a) to spell out the basis of its negotiating position; and (b) more time in which such a negotiation can take place. It also needs a solution to the Irish question.
It has not done (a) or (c) and has set its face against (b).
The choice to exit without a deal is entirely the British government’s. It is not being pushed into anything.
You could flip that. What is the point of agreeing more time to negotiate if the EU says renegitiation of the WA is not possible? The EU is making a stupid position by Boris become logical.
It is just pure obstinacy at this point. After the EU pushed the UK too hard into a deal that couldn't pass parliament, despite the utmost efforts of the UK government, there is absolutely no willingness to compromise even slightly. It is the diametric opposite of how Britain treated France post-war, when the Free French were treated as an equal partner even when their role was little more than symbolic in the war effort.
What on earth do you expect the EU to do now? Britain reached a deal with the EU. It twice confirmed that it would not reopen the withdrawal agreement. It now seeks to go back on its own word.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
Turn it around Alistair. What do you expect the UK government (Boris) to do?
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
What do I expect the UK government to do? Hold a referendum on revoke vs no deal. It's the simplest way to get a mandate for one of the two viable courses of action, neither of which currently have a mandate.
London is a positive thing. We’re lucky to have it. People need to accept that. There is a lot of them and us nonsense.
In my experience, planes and the location of airports have more impact on business decisions than trains. You need to be located within one hour direct of a decent international airport to thrive.
I count my blessings every day that we have London, what would I do with all the money if if it was not being siphoned off to London.
+1 As an example:-
Transport spending in London is £3,636 per person, compared with £519 in the North-East and £511 in Yorkshire, over the next 15 years.
Now equally I could annoy Malcolm and talk about how little the North gets compared to Scotland per capita but attacking London is very easy.
Eek, all part of the same game, at least the North can influence the spending , no matter who we vote for Scotland cannot change it. However your point is valid and the North should feel as aggrieved as Scotland.
In order to have money siphoned off to London, one would need to pay more than one received back. The siphoning takes place from, not to, London.
You focus all the country's infrastructure spending on one city and count it as national spending but then apportion all the revenue generated as being generated by that city and it looks like that city "pays" for everyone else.
Comments
Let me know when I can change trains at Riccarton Junction or get a train direct direct from Whitrigg to Annan across the Solway Railway Bridge (closed 1920).
Thanks Elon
So yes.
In India, for 1500 years. The entirety of these societies' culture and history are infused with the Buddha's philosophy.
The capacity for self delusion amongst our political classes is limitless.
I suppose as a resident of London and the South East I'm not allowed to mention our huge infrastructure issues such as the absence of transport capacity for the tens of thousands of new flats being constructed, the absence of new river crossings downstream of Tower Bridge and a rail system which struggles with current passenger numbers yet has a whole line from SE London to Waterloo sitting unused along with platforms at Waterloo.
That's before we mention the small matter of Crossrail and the proposed Crossrail 2 !!
Certainly if you look at overcrowding, some of the most overcrowded services are those from Manchester Airport to Glasgow and Edinburgh
But those from elsewhere in the country might mention that Londoners have thrice the transport spending per head compared to other parts of the UK.
Nice to see even more "Civic Nationalism"
"I can take the despair, it's the hope I can't stand ."
For example on the latest Yougov there is a 12.5% swing from Labour to the Conservatives in London (compared to 3.5% nationally) since GE17 and a 12% swing from the Tories to the LDs in London (about the same as the 12.5% swing nationally).
That would see the Tories gain 11 seats from Labour in London but only lose 2 to the LDs in the capital
The link below shows the US$ value of current accounts (which is as near as we get to trade deficits). China is tenth. (If you did % of GDP, it would be mid-table)
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BN.CAB.XOKA.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true&view=map
https://www.opentraintimes.com/maps/signalling/wat
At least charters are making use of the Nine Elms flyover:
http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/U55150/2019/08/20/advanced
Jury's out.
The problem has been we have been unable to come up with anything credible and practical. Arguing for a technological solution that might work in a decade is no good for 1/11/19 and the EU rightly points us out. Yes, we can stay in the EU for a decade and then see if the technological solution works but I can't imagine that going down well with the acolytes or with the BP.
Once again, there's no point shouting, stamping our feet and blaming the EU. We chose to leave - it's only right we should come up with ways for making that process work for both sides.
This is a similar opportunity, Boris, and Varadkar, need to seize it and not stuff it up.
China while it remained Marxist was impoverished.
We should know enough to condemn Marxism to the dustbin of history and for his name to be treated with contempt not admiration but sadly we still keep having to win this argument despite the evidence being conclusive.
Not only that, the British government literally has no position, reasonable or unreasonable, to engage with. The Prime Minister has had more positions on the EU than he has pairs of underwear. Just how is the EU supposed to engage with a country and a Prime Minister that both seek to take advantage of their own serial duplicity?
May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened. May is gone. Boris was calling explicitly for the WDA to be reopened at the time May made those commitments, Britain has chosen via its own constitutional process to make Boris PM now not May.
The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win.
Thanks Gina Miller for that one.
When a deal is reached there's no reason the WDA can't either be changed or a legally-binding codicil can't be appended to it to change it. If it isn't legally binding it is pointless.
No Parliament can bind its successor, but no PM can bind their successor either, especially when the predecessor PM's decisions were rejected by Parliament at the time.
The other point to note is that Boris’s envoy to Brussels, David Frost, was asked whether the WA minus backstop would be acceptable to the British government and replied no. So the issue is not just the backstop. Boris is resiling from everything but coming up with nothing in its place.
The same in reverse absolutely applies to Johnson and the UK. There needs to be a degree of compromise all round, but instead all we get from both sides is hard lines and willy waving.
The costs for a mile of rail track or water line are the same, but you can serve a higher number of customers with it.
That should be an advantage, not a disadvantage.
1. An open Irish border.
2. British sovereingty.
3. Integrity of the single market.
I think everyone agrees the Irish border is paramount so we can take that off the table. Surely the EU can accept that 2 is at least as important as 3 if we want something acceptable to all sides? Is the risk to 3 really bigger than what currently exists on the Romanian-Moldova border? Or the Polish-Ukrainian one?
"Britain did not reach a deal with the EU. May reached a deal with the EU" - FACT. Under the principle of nothing is agreed until everything is agreed, the deal would only be reached once it is ratified by Parliament; Parliamentary approval was required by an Act of Parliament as amended by Grieves.
"May is gone." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"Parliament refused to pass it three times." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"May twice confirmed the WDA would not be reopened." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"May is gone." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"Boris was calling explicitly for the WDA to be reopened at the time May made those commitments" FACT. Do you dispute this?
"Britain has chosen via its own constitutional process to make Boris PM now not May." FACT. Do you dispute this?
"The British government literally has a reasonable position to engage with. Forget about May that's history, drop the backstop, get on with negotiating the future relationship and deal with the Irish border. Clean, simple, logical and possible. Win/win." My opinion.
I count 7 statements of fact [though one is dupiclated so 6] that you claim to be untrue fantasy. So which claims do you believe are fantasies of mine? May being gone? Parliament thrice rejecting the deal? Boris claiming the WDA should be renegotiated? All fact.
https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1164493829690384384?s=20
On waterlines, gas lines and broadband cable not so much, nobody is displaced in these cases.
Parliment voted down the WA on multiple times. It's dead, and its rejected.
The WA needs to be rewitten now from start. Thats how it is, and the EU and Macron should recognise that. It's ilogical of them to say the WA can't be reopened.
Now, if they want to push the UK into no Deal thats somethign else, but then they should be honest with that, and that should also be recognised.
May's government is gone, all we are left with is the laws and treaties ratified by Parliament. Had Parliament ratified the WDA it would be international law and May might still be PM, it did not.
That's true, but the Act of Parliament that permited the triggering of A50 is still there and A50 is still legally triggered.
Anything else that happens in the future is for this Parliament now though not that one. And after the next election this Parliament will no longer be relevant except for the laws it has passed. Which may or may not include a WDA.
It has not.
https://twitter.com/patrickhealynyt/status/1163794901269700608
It has not done (a) or (c) and has set its face against (b).
The choice to exit without a deal is entirely the British government’s. It is not being pushed into anything.
And in the meantime my wife and I are so proud of our granddaughter. She received her results today.
5 x A* and 7 straight A's
If that's your definition of "utmost efforts", I would like to see your definition of "total fucking shit-show from beginning to end run by people who couldn't find their arse with both hands and a map".
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/08/21/deal-no-deal-must-never-leave-british-trade-hostage-channel/